Editorial: Repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' sets stage for treating all service members equally

Monday

Dec 27, 2010 at 12:01 AMDec 27, 2010 at 3:58 PM

The 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy is now history, consigned to the trash heap of exclusionary military rules alongside others that didn't let women serve and kept blacks and whites out of the same units.

The 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy is now history, consigned to the trash heap of exclusionary military rules alongside others that didn't let women serve and kept blacks and whites out of the same units.

From the get-go, "don't ask" was disliked, an improvised Clinton-era measure designed to bridge the gap between that president's initial desire to let gays serve openly in the armed forces and the existing rule that they couldn't serve at all. Essentially, any homosexual who wanted to defend the country had to remain in the closet or be actively dishonest about his or her orientation. More than 13,000 servicemen and -women have been discharged for being gay since its inception. No more.

The expectation from military leaders is that the change will prove easiest on those in the under-30 set who are more used to, and less threatened by, people being open about their orientation. As one Army officer serving at Ft. Stewart in Georgia told the Washington Post, "The talk among most of my soldiers is, 'We don't care.'"

That certainly tracks with public opinion on the matter, where polls have consistently shown support for a repeal. The Pentagon also spent nearly a year gathering information from military members and even their spouses on a variety of questions for which their answers were guaranteed anonymity. More than 70 percent said the impact of letting gays serve openly would be "positive," "nonexistent" or "mixed."

Of the rest, most worry about the potential disruptions to unit cohesion, particularly in combat zones. That's not out of line as far as worries go, but it's also the same argument that cropped up when units were racially integrated, and when women became soldiers. Are we to believe that gays are less able than heterosexuals to keep their hands to themselves? Outside of speculation fueled by ingrained prejudice, no evidence that we're aware of has been provided on that score, and it fails the common-sense and experience test. To our knowledge that has not been the case in other nations where homosexuals have served openly in military units - including Russia, Israel, every NATO country but Turkey, and the entire European Union. Many gays quietly serve in the U.S. military now without incident. In any case a military that imposes perhaps the most disciplined environment of any institution in American life has rules regarding fraternization and harassment, and we trust is not shy about enforcing them.

Though it was a generally tame debate in both House and Senate, there were still a handful of lawmakers who didn't exactly distinguish themselves. After pledging to rely on the Pentagon study and the recommendation of military commanders, Sen. John McCain ultimately chose to reject both, insisting the repeal would "harm ... battle effectiveness." That was nothing compared to fellow Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, who claimed passage would "cost lives." The only member of military brass who advanced a similar argument - Marine Gen. James Amos, who said letting gays serve openly could be a "distraction" that might lead to injuries - has stepped back. Most others who once had reservations, including the likes of Gen. Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, no longer have objections.

In any case the U.S. military takes its orders from the civilian leadership, an arrangement that largely has served this nation well through the implementation of some controversial decisions where the initial fears ultimately proved quite unfounded. Desegregating the military is but one example. Why would we create any barrier to people willing to put their lives on the line for this nation and all it stands for, including the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law? And particularly during wartime when we can use all the contributions we can get?

The answer, provided by healthy majorities in Congress, is that we shouldn't. Our forces have always proven to be adaptable. America wouldn't be a military superpower if its soldiers quaked at every change. The Pentagon still has some due diligence to perform here, but Americans should have every confidence that the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" can be implemented safely and effectively with no negative impact on combat readiness. It's likely the nation will look back on this years from now and wonder what the big deal was.